There's growing tolerance for splitting off chunks of what our social studies teachers insisted was an "indivisible" union.

OfficialCalexit/InstagramIf Californians want to secede from the union, they're unlikely to get much pushback from their former countrymen, recent polling finds. That's good news. In a country in which political disagreement makes people enemies rather than opponents, carving up the real estate probably offers a better path to peaceful dispute resolution than elections that threaten to put losers at the mercy of their mortal foes.

Determined to show the way to a balkanized and—presumably—better future, California secessionists have yet again reworked their proposal for an independent progressive republic. The latest iteration includes a homeland for Native American tribes, based on the model of Greenland, which is semi-autonomous under the flag of Denmark. (A sizeable minority of Californians seem interested in the idea.) The secessionists also shifted gears strategically, arguing that it will be legal for them to cut ties with the U.S. if a majority of other states agree. They argue that Republican-controlled legislatures would be happy to push the Democrat-run state out the door.

They might well be right about that. Red Tribe lawmakers would likely be thrilled to see the impact of all of those Blue Tribe votes withdrawn from the electoral college, along with two Democratic Senators and an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to the House of Representatives.

But the secessionists should also be heartened to know that Americans at large would likely greet their departure with fruit baskets rather than a unionist army. A "plurality of Americans"—39 percent—"agree with a state's right to make a clean break from the Federal Government and go their own way," Zogby revealed last month after a poll of 1,001 likely voters taken in early July. Only 32 percent said they "would support a military intervention to suppress a state's attempt to break away," with 29 percent saying they weren't sure.

Zogby found essentially identical results in a similar poll conducted last year. But support for letting secessionists go their own way has almost doubled in the 10 years since 22 percent of Americans agreed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic" in a 2008 Zogby poll.

Why the growing tolerance for splitting off chunks of what our social studies teachers insisted was an "indivisible" union?

Ten years ago, when that earlier Zogby poll was taken, political division in this country were tense and escalating but hadn't yet reached the animosity of the present "cold civil war," as it's been described by observers including journalist Carl Bernstein and Angelo M. Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. It's par for the course, now, for losers to assert that electoral victories are illegitimate, as Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has of Donald Trump's unexpected presidential victory—and as Trump himself did of Barack Obama's presidency.

"The country has never seen anything like the last 23 years, during which three presidents have had their legitimacy constantly under challenge, with an accompanying rise in polarization," George E. Condon Jr. wrote for National Journal in 2016.

You can make that four presidents, now.

There's a good reason for those legitimacy battles. Elections are for political opponents who disagree with the competition. America's political battle lines now feature political enemies who hate the competition.

"Democratic and Republican voters...despise each other, and to a degree that political scientists and pollsters say has gotten significantly worse over the last 50 years," Emily Badger and Niraj Chokshi wrote for The New York Times in 2017.

"While partisan animus began to rise in the 1980s, it has grown dramatically over the past two decades," Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin, political scientists at Stanford, reported in a paper published earlier this year. And as that tension has grown, "hostility toward the opposing party has eclipsed positive affect for ones' own party as a motive for political participation."

That political hostility is expressed on the street and in the media—but its ultimate expression is through control of the power of the state. And the state has an enormous amount of power to reach into every area of human life, not only to enact policy, but to punish enemies.

Law itself can be weaponized—a task increasingly easy when lifestyle preferences correspond closely with partisan affiliation. Want to punish the other political tribe? Go after the things they like to do, the places they live, and the ways in which they earn their keep.

"What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave," snarled a former New Hampshire Democratic state representative who disliked the libertarian Free State Project that's been migrating to the Granite State. She added, "One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here."

Or you can wield the agencies of the government as bludgeons, using the IRS, the FBI, and regulatory agencies against those with differing ideas and affiliations. Tax agencies have long been abused this way, because of their inquisitorial powers. But regulators now lean on private businesses to sever ties with disfavored individuals and organizations to isolate them from money and support.

Losers in each election get to anticipate being on the receiving end of the vast state apparatus.

We could consider decentralizing political decision-making and stripping government of much of its power. Lowering the stakes that way might not make the political tribes like each other any better, but it could make their mutual contempt less desperate, since it would reduce the degree to which they inflict their political will on one another.

Frankly, I'd be pleased to see the institutions of government reduced to pleasant, poorly-attended museum exhibits. Nobody is afraid of historical dioramas. But I may be shooting high when there's so little evidence that Americans are willing to pare back the dangerous power of the state to any significant degree.

As it stands, a powerful state and deeply hostile factions threaten to keep turning each political dispute into a knife fight. If American political life is to be nothing more than a scramble in a locked room for control of a blade, why not consider opening the room's doors?

Let California out—along with anybody else who wants to go. Americans seem to be picking up the idea that, with a few more political borders in place and less chance of being subject to enemies' whims, we'll all get along so much better.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Even if you said CA could leave, there are large areas of the state that would not want to do so. I would think even reason would agree that those areas should be allowed to leave the new People's Republic of California if they wanted. That would cut off most of the state north of the the bay area, all of the central valley, and maybe Orange County and San Diago. After you did that, I am not sure even the Chinese would be interested in what was left.

Colorado River is NOT the fucking property of the United States. All you fucking people outside the the actual watershed of that river (and yes that includes CA west of Imperial Valley) should eat your own diarrhea

Right, whatever. If the water gets diverted, what the hell is California going to do about it? Sue in the ICC? Petition the United Nations, who will issue a strongly-worded memo to the effect that what we're doing is very bad and would we please stop doing it, and, oh, don't forget the check from the U.S. that keeps the U.N. afloat is due on the first of the month.

If that water gets diverted, I will arm Colorado and Utah myself and we will assassinate every pol from outside the watershed who claims they have control of that water.

You do realize that Colorado and Utah aren't the only states in that watershed, right? The Bureau of Reclamation doesn't have to do anything other than reallocate California's share amongst the rest of the users. The real fight would be over how that water was reallocated, not whether it's "diverted", which is ALREADY TAKING PLACE among the Colorado River Compact users.

What will be funny is water access. The US would cut off water to California the next day

Rescinding the Colorado River Compact would be a hoot, but the real issue is how the rest of the state reacts to the looney-tunes on the coast breaking off. It's quite likely that the inland portions of the state would simply refuse to go along and leave the SF-LA spine on its own.

In a nutshell, who gives a damn. They seem to be of the mindset that they are an entity unto themselves and so utterly above the rest of us miscreants as to be laughable. Let 'em go, let 'em figure out the high cost they will have to pay for water and electricity from the former United States.

I will laugh my proverbial butt off when their former illegal Mexicans then vote to become part of Mexico again. . .

That's true, but that doesn't mean secession is remotely close to being viable for most voters there. Look at a map of California whenever the margin of victory is around 10% in favor of the Democrat (e.g. the 04 presidential election or 2010 senate or governor races). Virtually the entire valley aside from Sacramento is red, along with SD, the OC, and the IE. Even Kashkari in 2014 won the IE and all but a few Central Valley counties and lost SD by 2% while losing by 20% statewide.

Secession would have to have overwhelming support statewide to pass in these areas. If it passes with 50-55% of the vote (and currently even a poll from its supporters only finds 1/3 support and I'm skeptical it would actually reach that in a real vote) statewide it's not passing in those counties.

Well if the state of California does vote to secede then all in that political area would no longer be US citizens. Now if California votes to secede then I think those who live there and don't want to lose their US citizenship would have to declare their intentions to keep their US citizenship be given time for them to reestablish their residency in a state of the US to keep their US citizenship. Those who don't chose to continue their US citizenship would lose it upon the certifying the election. Now those in the rest of the US that was born in California would have to declare if they wanted to keep US citizenship or they would lose it.
Now about California being annexed by Mexico. That would be very possible since many of the residence of California are Mexican nationals now. Thus they could chose to vote to join Mexico. But if they join with Mexico or not there would have to be POE on every road between the US and the new nation of California.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. We have a wonderful precedent for a former US territory becoming (part of) another country. When the Panama Canal Zone ceased to be part of the US and became part of Panama, US citizens living in the Canal Zone didn't have to do anything to maintain their citizenship, and US citizens who were born in the Canal Zone didn't have to make any sort of declaration. So everyone who lives in California now who is a US citizen stays a US citizen. And US citizens don't lose their citizenship by living in a foreign country, so they wouldn't have to establish residency in a state of the US to keep it. Likewise, people living outside California who were born in CA don't have to declare that they want to keep US citizenship, because they were born in the US, even if the area they were born in is no longer part of the US. So most California residents and California-born non-California residents would wind up having dual citizenship.

Certainly, if California did secede, there would probably be some support for a US citizenship law that didn't allow California residents to pass US citizenship on to their children born in California after secession. But the dual-US/California citizenship issue would linger for a long time.

The refugees from the Peoples Republic of California would be relocated into the (still) national parks, pending application reviews for US Citizenship.
The fun part will be the collapse of the vaunted California economy when all defense contractors close because the no longer US Citizens will not have security clearances. The resulting unemployment will be a slight drag on the first 5 year plan.

That said, that's how democracies and republics work. There are no decisions that will make everyone happy, so demanding a process that ensures everyone is happy is just an elaborate way of saying "no".

The best you can do is create a process that minimizes whims and heat-of-the-moment decisions, while laying out the rights and responsibilities to all parties to try and protect everyone's rights and liberties in the process. Will everyone be happy? Of course not. But it's better then the alternative.

The only parts of California that need to split off are the coastal region from, say, 100 miles north of San Francisco down to just short of the Mexican border, and Sacramento. But if Sacramento were left with the rest of the state, I bet most of its occupants would move to the Bay Area lickety-split, because the rest of the state sure doesn't want them.

i believe that it would survive easily. Kalifornexico would lose close to 1/2 of its' population within a year. Also it would lose a majority of employers paying high wages. yes some large employers would be left but the wages paid by them will be far below what departed. It would also lose more than 2/3 of its' taxes which would mean two major changes. Much less government funding for things like infrastructure, etc meaning less maintenance. The other would be a huge increase in all taxes, from income to property taxes making it impossible for the majority of low wage earners to pay. Everyone receiving federal assistance would lose that benefit, becoming virtual wards of the state, guaranteeing almost immediate bankruptcy.

What about the 40% or more of the people in California who don't want to go? There is no "California" as such. There is a state government of a geographic area. Where does that government get the right to deprive anyone there of their American citizenship and make them citizens of a foreign country? They don't have the right to do that. The state government of California has no right to leave the union end of story.

And it is funny how when it comes to borders in any other context, reason is all about the right of the individual and how the government has no collective right to sovereignty. But when it comes to succession, suddenly the state of California has so much sovereignty they can decide their citizens are no longer part of the United States.

That's why I don't think much of things like the Scotish or Catalan separatist movements. It's not about self-determination or liberty. It's about governments fighting over who gets to boss people around.

I'm trying to think. Has there ever been a peaceful division of a country (of the more or less modern nation state variety) that ended up well?

Slovakia and the Czech Republic come to mind. That was peaceful. But that is the only one I can think of. Usually, it ends in disaster with a group of people who were in the majority suddenly becoming the minority in the new country and getting totally screwed as a result.

People always blame the Treaty of Versailles for sowing the seeds that led to World War II but really the Treat of Trianon that broke up the Austro Hungarian Empire was just as much or more responsible. It created all of these German minorities who had always been part of the German-Speaking Austrian Empire and made them ethnic minorities in now non German countries. This created a tremendous amount of animosity among these populations. The worst Nazis, the ones who volunteered to run the camps and be part of the special police units that rounded people up, disproportionately came from ethnic German enclaves like the Sudetenland. And the existence of those enclaves gave Hitler an excuse to invade the countries they were in and the German people a ready-made rationalization for doing so. Rarely does anything good happen from breaking up countries.

I imagine it would require some kind of supermajority, since it's effectively changing the State Constitution - appropriating a whole bunch of new powers. Probably would need a referendum to boot, and I'm sure plenty of Californians would blink if the measure really came down to a vote. Oh sure, there are a large number of people in LA that hate Trump, but would they really vote to leave the Union if it came down to it?

When they got the bill for all of the federal property they would have to take with them, for their share of the national debt, and were told their Social Security and Medicare were no longer valid, I imagine they would blink very quickly.

You do know that Americans loving abroad who have enough SS credits still get to claim it, don't you? For that matter, some countries have agreements with the US regarding SS and SS-like programs such that it's not a problem working half your life in one or the other.

The national-level concerns exist, sure, but the US already knows how to handle US citizens working and living abroad. That part would only be a problem if the US decided to be petty and vindictive.

Yes, the US could give them Social Security and medicare but why would they? If they left the union, they would no longer get a vote. Why on earth would the people who remained in the Union want to send them money? They wouldn't. The US would be under no obligation to do so and there would be no political will to do so even if it was.

Ah, you are assuming, without evidence, that if California seceded the US would strip everyone of their citizenship.

This just goes back to what I'm saying below: before anyone gets serious about seceding (again), we need an amendment defining the process, rights, responsibilities and so-on so that if this conversation ever becomes more then idle speculation we have answers to many questions, including regarding citizenship.

Maybe purchase/annex/whatever some Mexican desert land and give that to the progtards. Then build the wall. None of them retain citizenship and will be barred from entering the US. Then we have a place to dump off any more uppity progtards that want to enslave the rest of us.

Escher
" be a problem if the US decided to be petty and vindictive." Keep electing socialist/progressive/democrats and it will be, in spades. the differences are conservative/republican run government is basically get the money. more work=more money. the socialist/democrat run government is more about running peoples lives telling them that what government says is what the people want and getting their money from taxing its' subjects.

And it is funny how when it comes to borders in any other context, reason is all about the right of the individual and how the government has no collective right to sovereignty. But when it comes to succession, suddenly the state of California has so much sovereignty they can decide their citizens are no longer part of the United States.

If California seceded, the ideal scenario would be that they kept an open border with the US and anyone who wanted to remain US citizens could do so, if the US Congress allowed it, which it would under an ideal scenario. I don't know why they would want to continue to pay US income/payroll taxes though, which would be the only remnant of citizenship that would remain for them. Maybe they'd be owed SS and Medicare if they've paid into it their whole careers.

This is all fantasy because California will not secede in our lifetimes.

Who cares if they still had their US citizenship. They would no longer be living in the US. I am in California living on land I own. Where does the state government get the power to decide that my land is no longer part of the US but a part of new Republic of California and subject to their rules without my consent? And if governments have that power, how do they not also have the power to enforce borders. I don't see how you can say a government can leave a sovereignty and make a new one and then deny it can have borders. Yet, that is exactly what reason does. And they are not so much hypocrites as just really stupid and confused in their views.

Who cares if they still had their US citizenship. They would no longer be living in the US.

They'd be living in the same place they'd been living though, right?

Where does the state government get the power to decide that my land is no longer part of the US but a part of new Republic of California and subject to their rules without my consent?

Where does the US government get the power to decide that your land is part of the US? Or that you can't invite certain people onto your land without special permission from them?

Besides, you probably rent the land (er, pay "property taxes" not rent) from California, so it's really their land. Right?

And you are threatened by the USA, California, whatever County, and whatever City into following all sorts of rules without your consent. Is this so different? New boss, same as old boss.

And if governments have that power, how do they not also have the power to enforce borders. I don't see how you can say a government can leave a sovereignty and make a new one and then deny it can have borders.

They do how that power, of course. They can always use it if they want to. They've got guns and jail cells, and for some reason, legitimacy in the minds of most people. Ideally though, they would not use their guns, etc. to threaten people who come and go across a border, or any other peaceful activity for that matter.

Juice, you make some good points. Which is why o favor exiling progressives to some other o,ace instead of excising a chunk of the continental US. I also really like the idea of a somewhat depopulated CA, with all that beautiful land, free of Marxist shitbirds and their political correctness and their tyranny.

When Kalifornia was taken into the union there was a mutual benefit and that made it easy to do. the only benefit from leaving now will be for only the ruling class of Kalifornexico. Businesses that get the majority of their work from the federal government will leave as soon as possible taking the employees with them, leaving circle k and fast food stores to support the infrastructure and government dependents.

I think you're confused about the nature of consent and individual liberty. I really don't see what the disconnect is, but for some reason, you just don't get it.

No I am not. You are confused. You cannot on the one hand claim that everyone has a right to move wherever they want and no government has the right to stop them, which is exactly Reason's position, and then on the other hand claim that a government can effectively decide my property is no longer in the US but in a new country. It is all the same power.

I don't know what it is about you that you can't ever find any flaw in reason's positions. But there must be some kind of disconnect that causes you to miss it.

Nobody is saying countries can't have borders. It is quite evident that they can. And very few people are saying that countries shouldn't have borders. Calling for much more open immigration isn't the same as having no borders. I don't think even Dalmia is calling for no border controls at all.

I do agree that Reason could use a bit more nuance and diversity of opinion in their immigration coverage, even though I do generally agree with their position.

You mean California would become the only State properly independent from the Federal Government per the Constitution, yet remaining citizens still able to have its people vote to meddle in the affairs of everyone else.

Maybe they'd be owed SS and Medicare if they've paid into it their whole careers.

Under current law, US expats can receive Social Security retirement benefits, they cannot receive SS disability payments nor Medicare.

Under any kind of amicable split current residents of CA would retain any citizenship status they had so that any US citizens would essentially become expats. Hence, they would still receive any retirement benefits they were already entitled to. For disability and Medicare they would be our of luck. Considering CA's homeless population, I suspect this alone would give at least some secession advocates pause.

Just double checked my claim above and find that, in fact, eligible expats can receive SS disability payments, though not Medicare which many of the homeless (and the CA homeless industry which seems to be extensive) in CA count on. I stand corrected (by myself - I notice no one saw fit to contradict my claims).

That would be an asylum event, and people would have to leave California to exercise it. The average citizen there who stays is so utterly confused about managing the rule of law they would likely declare both sovereignty and still lay claim to the bill of rights during whatever debate takes place. They are going to be severely disappointed with the bilge Sacramento is likely to kick out. Likely outcome? A complete shithole on par with Angola, where arguments get settled with AK47's because third world cops expect to get paid if they are called to show up and settle a situation because people who can barely survive in an environment of 100% import tariffs are not up for an event of random taxation.

Laudable notion, but with one party rule they are not going to entertain opinions currently regarded as patriotic. Start banking with an institution with no brick & mortar exposure in the land of Oubladie as an insurance policy.

Damn right! I thought I posted a rather long rant bout this, but can't find it. Anyhow, being concise is always better. I've been a Californian most of my life, and I've been a patriot my whole life. The article is only superseded in offensiveness by the comments I've read on this comments board.

We have had no enemies of any strength on our borders for pretty much forever and you jestingly invite one here?

Americans are fools, been living in a fantasy where complaining about racist Starbucks employees and Amazon packages arriving slow seems like a big deal compared to the horrendous stuff that goes on across the world every single day.

As I said, having a process we all (or enough of us for a constitutional amendment) think is fair ahead of time means that when someone gets to pull the trigger such things are not decided on the heat of anger and petty vindictiveness.

Such a process should involve a series of local votes, with the state leaving having to leave behind any parts that want to stay. With some exchange of territory to make for reasonable borders. (You don't want the resulting territories to be discontinuous.)

It looks to me like you could end up with two seceeding states, one centered around LA, the other San Francisco, but both hugging the coast, and everything else remaining as a Republican state similar to Nevada.

I think going off the presidential election results doesn't make much sense, except as a base starting point perhaps. Voting Democrat doesn't mean you want to secede (as the article mentions, even the pro-secession group only has it at 1/3 support and other polls in the last two years have it around 15-20% and that's before taking into account people who tell pollsters that but wouldn't actually vote for it if it was on the table) and Trump was unpopular even for a Republican in California. In a scenario where secession gets majority support, there'd still be significant areas blue on that map that would vote against it. The 2004 presidential election or 2010 senate/governor maps are probably more realistic as a comparison.

Well, obviously it's just a starting point. But I think the Presidential vote at least has the same "polarity" as secessionist sentiment in California, because what they want to secede from is a country where Republicans get to have political power.

That's what is driving this, not being able to accept being part of the same country as Republicans.

But, sure, you can use other races. The border moves a bit this way and that, but the divisions remain about the same. Two pieces of coast leave, the rest stays.

Maybe I do. Just because California left doesn't mean the rest of the country stops evolving politically.

Although... Assuming California leaves, you would expect population transfers followed by the seceding areas treated like any other foreign country for immigration purposes, with the remaining US considerably more in favor of immigration restriction. I'm not sure whether the flight from California would turn Nevada Democratic, or the immigration restrictions would stop the process of it being turned Democratic by California refugees.

I'm assuming that the non-seceding part of California would suddenly be a lot more congenial to the sort of people who right now flee California, so the latter scenario is my assumption, but with low confidence.

What's currently happening in California is exactly what happened in Texas in the early 1800s. This is and always was realpolitik plan of the castizo ruling class but short-term profit-minded cheap labor "libertarians" were too concerned with their bottom line and quarterly financials to harbor a historical long view

Hmm. How do you mean? Texas fought for independence after Mexico increasingly stripped Texans of more rights, diverging from the conditions laid out in the Constitution of 1824, to which the Texans originally agreed. California, as I see it, wants independence because the US isn't changing the Constitution enough.

At first I thought you were trolling but it seems you're actually serious about this. Lol.

What castizo ruling class are you talking about? Mexico's? You think immigration from Mexico has all been a plot by their leaders to retake California? You also seem to be drastically overestimating the influence libertarians of any stripe have/had over policy.

Libertarians was in quotes so as to highlight the open borders money obsessed Republicans that adopt libertarian platitudes as their rationale while being heavily statist in other regards.

But yes, it's not trolling. May not happen in our lifetimes and may or may not be a deliberate policy of Mexico, but I do see California and the broad southwest rejoining Mexico when the US collapses from its own internal contradictions, lack of cohesive civic identity, and financial house of cards.

I don't claim to know a lot about how Mexico works, but I get the impression that they have many diverse cultural identities and socio-economic strata that don't always get along, corrupt, fucked up politics, etc?

Open-ended non-falsifiable predictions are hard to argue against, and before I do that I want to clarify - when you say rejoining Mexico are you predicting that the state governments or electorates will vote to join Mexico or that Mexico will invade (or conquer by threat) once those states are no longer part of the US?

I realize it's non falsifiable and non provable. It's my own farfetched hypothetical possibility based on my reading of history and my view of the fractious state of American civic and ethnic cohesion.

As for whether by vote or force, I can see it happening in either fashion.

Your earlier comments implied that you saw this as an inevitability, so I'm a bit confused by you now describing it as a "farfetched hypothetical possibility." Regardless, I don't think there's currently any significant desire for reunification with Mexico in the West and I don't see that getting stronger as more time goes on and the connection to Mexico gets more and more distant for Mexican Americans, especially if Mexico remains chaotic. I don't think a national breakup in the next 50-100 years is that farfetched, but I don't think that translates to support for joining Mexico (if anything, seceding would reduce support for joining another country IMO). There's still going to be a large white minority in the West, not to mention black, Asian, and non-Mexican Latinos who have zero reason to support joining Mexico, and that's before you even get to the question of how many Americans of Mexican descent would actually want that.

As for a scenario involving force, I don't think Mexico's military is remotely up for the task, I don't think the Mexican population would support losing countless thousands of men to war and occupation to satisfy 19th century revanchism, and the seceding parts of the US would either have or could quickly develop nuclear weapons to deter it.

If secession ever actually happened, it wouldn't be overnight. There'd be a military buildup or a temporary agreement for US military protection during a transition period where the CA gov gets set up, Californians who wish to leave for the US move, etc.

Latin Americans are or will be an absolute majority in the southwest. Yes, significant chunks of that are not Mexican, but in a post US collapse scenario, Mexico may well annex the rest of central america and nevertheless the concept of la Raza has significant purchase with meso-Americans of all stripes. There may also be a sense at the time that the annexation of California by a meso-american empire would strengthen both sides.

It's not an inevitability. It is a hypothetical. But for long historical view hypotheticals that may occur beyond the lifetime of the prognosticator I think it reasonable

Even in the event that Mexico invaded and annexed Central America, why would that make Central Americans in the US more likely to support joining Mexico? And having some sort of Latino identity (which not all do - a lot of people just prefer to identify with their ancestral country if they even feel any major attachment to their heritage at all) doesn't mean you'd support annexation by any random Latin American country. There's a lot of rivalry and bitterness between Mexico and Central American countries (and between all the CA countries), it's not one big happy family, especially if you are looking at the government level. You could find the occasional Mexican revanchist in the US, though they're most common in right-wing fever dreams, but I'm pretty sure I've never met a non-Mexican (Latino or not) who would even entertain the idea of joining Mexico.

Also, you of all people should know that a majority of a majority doesn't necessarily translate to an overall majority. Republicans win a majority of the white vote every election, but they frequently lose elections because the Democrats win bigger among minorities. Even if your scenario of Southwest secession with a majority of a Latino majority supporting joining Mexico, that doesn't mean overall support would be a majority or close to it when you consider there would be zero support among minority groups (counting whites as a minority group here).

I've lived in majority Latino neighborhoods in LA for 7 years, and I've spent plenty of time in areas that are almost entirely Latino like East LA and surrounding communities as I have friends and a girlfriend from those neighborhoods. I do find your choice of examples interesting, because what % of the Latino population do you think goes to La Raza events or art shows? Even if we granted most people at those events are serious Mexican revanchists (which at least for the art shows I consider a dubious assertion) you're talking a drop in the bucket in terms of overall numbers. Even in presidential election years, less than half of eligible Latino voters bother to vote, and about 25-30% of those who do vote Republican, so excuse if I find the notion that there's serious mass energy for making Mexican reunification real to be a highly questionable assertion to say the least.

I don't think there presently is any serious and grassroots political will for reintegration with Mexico precisely because modest people recognize that their bread is buttered here by a lavish welfare system.

My hypothetical assumes a collapse of the political and economic institutions in the United states that fundamentally alters this calculus. And when sustained hard times come, people seek the comfort of tribal, and yes ethnic, allegiances.

That there exists even a nascent decolonize now/la raza movement (the graffiti in DTLA and Boyle heights should give some indication of what i mean, the hard to be one rightdown ther street from me at Winston and Los Angeles on the wall of blossom thai restaurant), means that when hard times arrive the groundwork for such aztlanism will be ready to assume real political force.

In times of destitution and strife, it is the fringes that become mainstream. We are careening toward such times now. The young can feel it, which is precisely why antifa/DSA and the alt right have arisen. No one under 25 is a neoliberal anymore. They've all gone full bolshevik or full fash or are just masking their fear and indecision with irony. They all sense the coming collapse.

I don't know how soon until it comes or what the black swan event will be, but it's coming. And when it does, the ethnic cleansers of all disparate nationalities will gain steam. There isn't a cohesive national identity to unify them because the demographic changes have been too abrupt to unify under a coherent civic principle.

All we can hope for is some new order that can stitch together a common civic purpose at that time. But I promise you it won't be libertarian and capitalistic

"Necessarily" is a key word in that paragraph bro, obviously majorities of a majority can prevail, but it doesn't mean they will, especially when the minority is as overwhelmingly opposed as would be the case in this scenario. If Latinos were 70% of the population you'd need almost 3/4 support to get a narrow majority. Currently they aren't even a majority in any state, so I'd hold off on the supermajority projections. And these numbers don't just count non-Mexicans, they count people whose families have been here for generations who feel little to no attachment to their ancestral countries, and people of mixed origin (40% of US born Hispanics marry a non-Hispanic, per the latest Pew Research figures). The chances of this happening outside of right-wing or Mexican revanchist fan fiction aren't very high.

"Regardless, I don't think there's currently any significant desire for reunification with Mexico in the West and I don't see that getting stronger as more time goes on and the connection to Mexico gets more and more distant for Mexican Americans, especially if Mexico remains chaotic."

I agree with this but do not find it beyond the realm of possibility for an ethnic majority to try and secede and make California a new state based on a Hispanic identity, especially as this majority is heavily Mexican and not mixed from different states.

Culture is important. Hardcore libertarians, just like Marxists, reduce everything to economic units and a quasi-religious moralistic framework of the world. I think it seriously blinds them in many respects, including the idea highly concentrated, massive immigration from one place over a short timeframe is somehow good as it entirely ignores questions of culture and assimilation in place of the quasi-religious moralistic framework.

" You think immigration from Mexico has all been a plot by their leaders to retake California?"

Not all, but there's a component of that.

The question is, if California secedes, would they continue their open borders policy with Mexico? Currently it has great benefits for the California political class, as the illegal immigrants count towards apportionment.

But as a separate country, that would cease to be an advantage, while all the disadvantages of inviting in 3rd worlders would remain. I think it's quite possible that an independent California would find it advantageous to enforce its borders.

They'd go total socialist in a few years and fail miserably... people would leave in droves and then the Libertarians could move there in droves and take over and we'd have a beautiful California again! :)

More unity is preferable in general, not just in this country, but in Europe and other international economic orders, and eventually globally, because closely unified territories fight fewer wars with each other. If WW3 happens it will be because of idiots paranoid about the Jew World Order. And those are the same people insisting on keeping sweatshop jobs close to home anyway.

"What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave," snarled a former New Hampshire Democratic state representative who disliked the libertarian Free State Project that's been migrating to the Granite State. She added, "One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here."

Lincoln was right about the abolition of slavery, but wrong about leaving the Union.
Just how much shit should people put up with before they say, "Enough! I'm leaving you and and all your bullshit."
Think of it as a divorce from a bad spouse where reconciliation cannot be met.

Seriously, we just got over eight years of hearing about Texas seceding or breaking up into five states. Now we're hearing about California doing the same.

I guess the major difference is that Texas has violently seceded twice (first from Mexico, then from the US) whereas California has no experience doing so.

But that's part of why I think any such process should be stretched out over at least two presidential elections. "My candidate lost" shouldn't be the basis for secession, and the grievances should be persistent regardless of the President.

I say lets put them on the ballot for everyone to vote over the internet....make sure all those illegals get a chance to vote too....Bye Bye Kamala, Bye Bye Moonbeam, Bye Bye Schiff. Can we deport illegals to California after the secede...just trying to help them out as many folks who would like to remain American citizens have been leaving.

Let the parts of California that want to go (SF, LA and some surrounding areas) leave. Let the rest stay as California. But make it clear to those leaving that they will be paying for their gas, electric, and water, and that we will not allow foreign nations to establish naval bases on what was previously US territory.

Then, when they want to come back, tell them that they're welcome too, provided we first implement a few structural changes to their local governments that are consistent with the Legislative/Constitutional changes we have enacted while they were gone.

the meme that this nation is "indivisible" is a false construct assembled from whole cloth by that scoundrel former corporate railroad lawyer Abe Lincoln as a basis for his starting the unconstitutional military action to "prevent" the southern states from opting out of the Union they had opted into less than a century previous. Per the Constitution, each state is a sovereign political entity which feely chose to band together with other similar such to form a sort of coalition and government for limited and closely defined purposes. Lincoln, in persuing that illegal war, elevated FedGov to the position of a natioinal religion. Thus, if California want to go, they should.... and take with them their ports of entry for thousands of unvetted illegal foreigh invaders, and keep their oath-breaking state politicians from polluting the rest of the states with their cancerous moral bankruptcy.

Bush Jr was bad.. Trump is awful and as a Californian, and at 69 years of age, I join the 33% that wish to secede from the Union. In fact, seeing as Trump was very, very vocal about Britains' right and obligation to secede from the EU, and very, very vocal about Scotland's right to secede from Great Britain, we certainly hope he doesn't pul one of his infamous flip-flops and decide that we shouldn't. He certainly should help us do so. We'll take our 14% of the US's GDP, and out 5th largest economy in the world and move on down the road! Thanks! Support yourselves deadbeats!

I love shitlibs that brag about MUH 14% GDP and MUH WORLDS FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY is if it happens in a vacuum. California's economy is as big as it is precisely because it's tied to the United States.

Split off Cali from the US, and it would be at the same level as Mexico--another nation with vast resources, but dependent on its richer neighbor for trade.

And since splitting off Cali would mean Republican Presidents and majorities for at least a generation, what happens if one of them simply determines that the People's Republic is a hostile entity (which it most certainly will be) and decides to launch a few tactical nukes at SF, LA, SD, and Sacramento?

Given that the Federal government paid absolutely nothing for it and has deliberately refused to auction it off like they should have a century ago - it all becomes state-owned land of the new CA government.

If it was worth anything the Federal government should have done something with it.

And then, once Republicans become firmly entrenched in federal politics due to the electoral college shift, if they have any sense they'll declare war on your new state using a "Restoration of the Union" casus belli, beat the hell out of you, and then make you an American territory instead of a state. We'll still get all your money, but none of your political bullshit!

First let me say that I support the right of California (or any other state) to secede from the Union. But it is a relatively drastic action. Less drastic would be what the author describes as -

"We could consider decentralizing political decision-making and stripping government of much of its power. Lowering the stakes that way might not make the political tribes like each other any better, but it could make their mutual contempt less desperate, since it would reduce the degree to which they inflict their political will on one another".

Wouldn't this be easier, and yield essentially the same benefits without the costs? Why do liberals insist on massive power / spending / taxation / etc. at the federal level? With a Republican president that you despise every other 8-year election cycle, why not support a very limited federal government with greater autonomy for the states?

And given that Lincoln's long-proclaimed goal in the Civil War was simply preservation of the Union, can anyone explain exactly why we sent about 1 million soldiers to their death in that war? And don't say "because slavery" unless you want to sound like a complete Boojum.

Are we to be locked in to Lincoln's vision 160 years later? Because one man's hubris sent millions to their deaths we must all stay in this relationship, the living must suffer to placate the memories of the long-dead?

As we place our lives deeper into the tech no world, remember all that California adds to our economy; talk about what California contributes to your life. Hell, we worship celebrities from there. Talk about it next time over a meal of food grown there (if you can find it...;-)

Technodystopia where our every thought is censored lest it conform to silicon valley imposed groupthink, vacuous celebrity cults that serve to only dumb down the hoi polloi with the equivalent of Huxley's soma, and an agricultural product that will disappear into a dust bowl without waters stolen from the remaining western states?

Errr....more accurately, we are encouraged to follow a painted version of their lives by media funded by the industry that benefits from the prominence of said celebrities. It is hardly natural or organic, and need not be treated as an aspect of the real world. And social media, while in most ways a pollution disbursement system, at least allows us to clearly see that said celebs have feet of clay up to the nipples, with extra clay filling the cranial cavity.

The Articles of California Secession would HAVE to include something ensuring that anyone above a certain level of Hollywood-related public notoriety would HAVE to stay in Cali. Stupid good-looking people aren't *that* rare.

I sure hope the Free Staters and their acolytes stop blubbering someday about the remarks made by former NH State Rep. Cynthia Chase in 2013.

She left the legislature.

It was 6 years ago.

The FSP moved to NH with the intention of taking over and dismantling the state government, yet at the slightest criticism they whimper, and bleat about it forever. Those freedumb skins are awfully thin.

When you consider that ex-Rep Chase, prior to prescribing 'freedom-inhibiting legal measures' to discourage said immigration, never actually stated what the 'extremist agenda' she objected to WAS, the whimper-and-bleat response sounds like fucking high rhetoric by comparison.

Also, you might make note of the fact that the "whimper and bleat" was not actually forever, it was more or less timely in response to her comments. The LINKS were 2018, of course. Articles on the internet do not require someone to be there, feeding the whimpering and bleating in the article continually until unleashed by a link.

So if you were trying to make a point about "libertarian fragility", you failed. It's like linking to a 2016 CNN piece whining and bleating about Trump being president and then opening it up in 2018 and pretending they had spent the entire 2 years...okay, bad example.

Where's the guarantee that Californians won't immigrate to the United States once their socialist paradise goes boom? That's a blue wave into battleground states right there.

Secession is unconstitutional, and the momentary schadenfreude of watching the People's Republic of CA implode won't be worth whatever money we have to spend to fix all their problems once they reapply for admission.

It's a bad idea all around, and (IMO) not terribly libertarian. The state depends on intangible assets for revenue but tech and investments don't have to stick around CA if Uncle Bernie's 100% tax hits them. And they might not want to do business with the unproven "California dollar". Bad things will happen if a state with 15 million welfare recipients / medicaid users run out of revenue.

And unlike Catalonia, the legion of CA democrat voters have no allegiance or sense of identity tied to the state. Zero. 99% of the state's population couldn't name the state flower or song. Half of the population is foreign born and identifies as their own ethnicity.

A nation isn't just a land with a bunch of people living in it. There's a distinct language and culture that defines a whole set people. CA will be hijacked by the Chinese within two years of independence and their misbegotten vision of "multicultural" nation will lead to all kinds of internal strife and division.

The constitution is just a piece of paper. The things it says are subject to the endlessly creative diktats of magistrates and whatever the merits of its philosophical foundation, it is dependent upon the will to enforce it with fealty to its letter.

California secession would be terrible for California and lead to untold suffering for California residents. That's precisely why I support it.

Or... instead of accepting "diktats of magistrates" congress could wake up and put the exclamation mark on the notion that the law begins and ends with congress by impeaching judges once in a while when their "creativity" writes law [such as SCOTUS directing the EPA to declare co2 a 'pollutant'] or assumes authority granted to the executive branch [such as attempting to seize authority in the case of Trumps travel ban]. Courts declaring a statute unconstitutional are just saying it is unenforceable and future attempts will quickly find a motion to dismiss granted within seconds - if a US atty is stupid enough to try and wants sanctions for breakfast.

Off the top of my head, I see 3 issues that must be resolved (probably by treaty):

1) California must sell enough bonds that upon secession it can pay cash for its per-capita share of the national debt.

2) All US citizens residing in Cal must be given a generous window in which to decide whether to retain US citizenship or follow Cal.

3) All federal installations must either become foreign sovereign territory (like embassies) or be purchased.

4) All private property in Cal must be respected, even if owned by citizens / residents outside Cal.

The last may be the stickiest. Corps and residents outside Cal will claim treaty violations with each and every new farci-Cal law abridging their property rights. Wars have started over less -- which makes me wonder why Cal hasn't been invaded already.

However, if Cal miraculously accepts reasonable terms for these four issues, then I'd gladly kick them out. Freedom-loving people don't need their communism polluting Congress.

I've been saying this for years. The only way to get back to anything evenly remotely resembling what America was meant to be is to split the country up. Personally, I think for the sake of fairness, we should throw in at least Western Oregon, and perhaps the southern half of Western Washington too, maybe keeping the northern part to build a west coast port for the remaining USA. That way they have plenty of land a resources at their disposal, and after self sorting of shit libs from the rest of the country (bye bye NYC progs! Move to LA!), we might be able to get things on track again.

As far as things go, if it came down to brass tacks, and they were demanding more land, I'd be willing to throw parts of the southwest under the bus and give it to them too. They're mostly a loss cause too. ANYTHING we had to concede would be worth it to get rid of these people.

People who still live under the delusion we're putting Humpty Dumpty back together again are fools. There are really only 3 options.

1. One side or the other will have to create an oppressive police state, and violently force the other side to comply. This will probably involve gulags, terrorism on the part of the side that doesn't run the government etc. It will be fucked.

2. We can have a violent civil war where we end up splitting in the end.

3. We can peacefully allow a section to go their own way.

I think it's clear #3 is the winning choice there, for practical AND philosophical reasons.

? I'd be willing to throw parts of the southwest under the bus and give it to them too. They're mostly a loss cause too.

Gee, thanks dude. I mean, you're only talking about some of the freest parts of this country right now. Nice to see we're just a bargaining chip to aid *your* area. How 'bout this - you don't get to 'throw us in' and we just leave for our own country. With blackjack.

Most of the southwest is ALREADY done for. They've turned into Blue States, or are going to in the next couple years. I live in Washington, which I ALSO suggested be sent off with California, so I'm not being a hypocrite! It's for the good of the country. If NYC were on the west coast, I'd surely throw them in too! It's just a matter of voting trends and geography, I think it makes more sense to keep it contiguous.

The fact is once the self sorting happens, it will greatly improve things elsewhere, which will be a worthwhile trade off for any sane person.

That said, if they didn't DEMAND parts of the southwest, we could afford to keep their bad voters, especially since many would likely move, without tanking the whole point of the thing... Which is getting rid of shit libs. There's also the possibility of splitting current states up, where one part stays in the US and the other goes to Cali. Oregon and Washington should really only be the western parts of the state, with the eastern parts staying in the USA, for instance.

You do realize my alternatives are basically all that is possible. Short of rounding up leftists and throwing them in camps, this country is DONE. It's GONE. Never to return. So it's either mass oppression, or a peaceful divorce. I don't MIND violence when it is needed, but it is best avoided if possible.

See my post above. In short, those states are ALL either left, or going left within a few years. Even Texas is going to go Blue within the decade. Demographic changes, and internal migration have doomed them.

My family moved to Washington state about 20 years ago. Back then it was a centrist state, with pretty awesome laws across the board... Now it is clear it is going to be a socialist hell hole in the near future. I know it hurts to ADMIT the place you live and love is doomed... But I can do it, so should too if you live in New Mexico.

If they don't demand them, we should keep them. Self sorting could probably fix them again... But if the cost of getting rid of California, and saving the USA as a free country is throwing New Mexico or whatever under the bus... It's a small price to pay. The people that live there and aren't commie can always move the next state over into the USA. That's half of what makes the whole project work.

I'd be cool with letting Texas go solo too honestly. I would move there in a heartbeat if they went indie, because they'd straighten out their current problems that doom them as part of the US in short order.

The secessionists also shifted gears strategically, arguing that it will be legal for them to cut ties with the U.S. if a majority of other states agree.

Somebody should tell them that it will be legal for them to leave their marriages only if the other party agrees. Someone should tell them that they can leave their business partnerships if a majority of the other partners agree.

Freedom of association absolutely includes the right to leave at any time. Lincoln was an asshole.

Conversely, why can't the rest of us vote to make them leave? Why do we have to wait until they want to go before we can decide?

The hell they don't! I bet if it came down to a national referendum, which we don't have in the USA... But if we did, and the pros and cons were discussed, people would vote to do it. It makes sense. It's not worth trying to hold together a shit marriage, and that's what the USA has turned into. Better to go our separate ways.

What's the point? Why stay married to a political entity that has nothing in common with you? Because of political self sorting, California is literally closer to being Sweden, in terms of their preferences, than anything remotely resembling America. Even with a weak central government, they'd still be fighting tooth and nail over the things that FedGov was left dealing with, like immigration, military, etc. It's just not worth it.

They aren't just fiscally responsible, they also don't redistribute that much between different income levels. That is, the middle class consumes most resources, so the middle class pays most of the taxes.

California isn't that bad. At least we have some of the highest state taxes in the nation and we all know that the more we pay, the better off we will all be. Now if the can only fix the roads in California, the schools, the massive retirement obligations, the homeless, the massive non-coastal poverty, the...

This is nuts. And although I usually enjoy the comments, I must say that most of you on this thread are also nuts. Do any of you even live in California? I am a proud California, and love this place for all of its pros and despite the cons. Sometimes we have very libertarian policies, and we also have some very strange almost socialistic policies, but no state is perfect and we are as libertarian as any other place, just making progress in different ways.

I want smaller government and less taxation, and as a taxpayer in California, I can say I get gouged, and the state spends that money often on foolish projects. I want a smaller federal government too. But as an American living in California, I find the article above and comments below more spiteful than helpful. Who the heck wants to break up our great country? Sure, there are wackjobs in California that yell loudly for this sort of thing. I don't know anyone personally here in California who actually thinks we should secede. And it would be economically terrible for the USA as a whole, including California. Why argue for a terrible decision?

We are one nation, the greatest in the history of the world I truly believe ever, despite all our flaws. This article is ridiculous. We are not splitting up. This is just fanning the flames of more partisan BS to get us to attack each other, rather than focusing on the reality around us. United we stand, divided we fall!

You are losing the battle and unfortunately due to the size of your population the majority of your citizens are enemies of limited government and unduly influencing the rest of us. I didn't think California needed to leave but other proposals to divide it into 3 states seemed to make sense to me.

You may be right that very few actually want to secede. But from my time in California, and from my discussions with liberals (from California or not), it seems obvious that many if not most on the left (geographically or politically), hold many Americans in complete contempt, and are terrified of the Trump presidency. Why then, do people from California not want to reduce the power of Washington? The author essentially points to the easy solution to the problem -

"We could consider decentralizing political decision-making and stripping government of much of its power. Lowering the stakes that way might not make the political tribes like each other any better, but it could make their mutual contempt less desperate, since it would reduce the degree to which they inflict their political will on one another."

Why do you think most of your fellow Californians oppose this? I get why they opposed it with Obama as president. But with Trump? Surely greater autonomy for the states should seem desirable now?

I'm a native Californian. Some sides of my family go back to the 1800s there. We have a friggin' town named after our family! I think we should kick it to the curb.

California is the best place to live in the USA weather wise... But it's a lost cause. With all the political self sorting, it has concentrated the leftists from a huge part of the country. I hate to use the generic analogy here, but it is much like a cancer.

If keeping California means the entire rest of the body is going to get sicker, which it does... Then as much as it might suck to cut out that cancel riddled lung, it must be done to save the rest.

Land is just land. Cali is pretty, but it's not worth destroying the rest of the country to keep that pretty dirt. PEOPLE make a nation, and their political views make what TYPE of nation you have. There are too many people with incorrect views in Cali. If we split it off, even more of them from NY, NJ and other places would move there. This would let the rest of the nation set about fixing itself.

It sucks that it has come to this... But all your same arguments would have been the same ones being made by people who didn't want to split off from the British Empire. Sometimes it just isn't worth trying to work out a failing marriage, and that's what Cali is at this point.

First, such stupidity can never pass because the majority of Californians do not want to secede. Second, California may have the 8th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP at 2.4 trillion, but it carries a debt of 1.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities such as pensions and other obligations. If the state were to secede, the mass exodus of people who do not want to leave the US would cause the economy to collapse. In addition, all the regulations recently passed and signed by the state government would prompt an exodus by companies. Many companies in California stay because they know the Federal government and Constitution are a check on the leftist insanity that comes out of Sacramento. Eliminate that protection, and they will flee. California will never secede because it cannot survive regardless of what leftist idiots claim and dream is true.

Also pull out of that 2.4 trillion amount the trade that will go to other (still US) ports rather than the new nation, which has no treaties. Also the tourism industry will go down by the number of US citizens not willing to shell out for passports. Remove the wage contributions of all US military and dependents. Remove the economic impact of all federal agencies, and all US defense contractors. Redefine the economy based on some new currency rather than the US dollar.
ETC.
Now where are they on the global economy scale?

Garbage site! It ate my comment. Too lazy to retype. The short version is that calling every bit of socialism the USSR is a bad tactic for libertarians and conservatives. It's better to point out the real world differences between the USA and socialist countries in Europe. Like the fact that we have bigger houses, nicer cars, make more money, and our healthcare provides better results when you really need it. Stupid Reason, I wrote a good post with that last one!

Not all of California wants to break away from the USA. Counties north of Sacramento, the San Joaquin Valley and east of the Sierra Nevada would stay with the United States. This is similar to West Virginia, the counties of which did not want to stay with Virginia's secession in 1861. The counties of West Virginia chose to split off from the rest of Virginia to rejoin the USA in 1863.

So if coastal California, from Marin County south through Los Angeles County wish to break away, fine let them go. Of course they will have a resource problem, but when they break away, it will be their problem and they can deal with it as they may if they so choose to secede.

But counties that wish to remain in the USA should be allowed to do so. Then let the counties that secede deal with their resource problem as they may.

I certainly support the right of California (or selected Californians, perhaps) to secede. Ditto for any other state. I think this was always the intent from the beginning. States could join the union, and states could leave the union if they choose. For many practical reasons, however, the probability of this happening is near zero. But I had hoped that liberals in California and elsewhere might see in a Donald Trump presidency the wisdom of reducing the power of the federal government, and sending that power back to the states or the people. One of the big problems, as the author points out, is that elections in Washington are essentially winner take all, with each side out to punish their enemies. If Cali could do as it pleases (within some limits), and so could the other states, then we wouldn't have to fear national election outcomes. I find it fascinating that so many liberals in California are willing to secede, but not willing to vote for a reduction in the power we give the federal government. If Donald Trump doesn't get them to consider a smaller federal government, then maybe nothing will.

I have long argued that splitting the country up is THE ONLY way to ever fix America, and return it back to anything REMOTELY resembling the country it was founded to be.

IMO anybody who doesn't see this is a fool. I wrote a much more detailed rant in the full article, but it is basically inescapable.

The only other option is for one side or the other to violently subdue the opposition, which would require a totalitarian state. If California wants to become a socialist democracy that's fine by me. Their economy will weaken, and they will become less affluent like European nations. BUT the important part is getting rid of their bad politics would enable the rest of the USA to head back towards more freedom.

I would also be willing to throw in at least parts of Oregon/Washington to sweeten the deal. I'd even throw some of the southwest under the bus if it came down to it. ANYTHING is worth the price of getting rid of them. If they had that much land, the self sorting of shit libs from the rest of the country could put the USA on track to be a VERY conservative/libertarian leaning nation. It would be AWESOME. A country doesn't need to be BIG to be a great place to live. The US might lose some global dominance in the whole thing, but that would probably be a good thing... Maybe we'd be forced to stop starting wars all over the world.

Good article, with a number of points in it. I am curious why we do not have a stronger secessionist movement here in the northeast.

Here is a question related to leaning on businesses. Did Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google think they would lose advertising or other revenue if they did not boot Alex Jones? And exactly who did lean on these giants? Are they so afraid of regulation down the line that they all caved at the same time - show of unity, so to speak?

If they can do that to Jones, they can do that to anyone. Yet we don't know who 'they' are in this case. Jones broadcast his views for years, then the giants all acted on the same day. In a country that protects free speech in the public square, that kind of action in concert does not happen.

Through all the conflicts and self-inflicted harms during these decades, I have thought, "At least we still have free speech." Not any more.

The Northeast is the other logical choice actually. People always talk Cali because it is a single, massive state. But if the Northeast ALL bailed, with NY as the capitol or whatever, we would be more or less getting the same thing done. Too lazy to add up total population there, but it probably wouldn't be too far behind Cali. And again, after self sorting of conservatives/libertarians moving out of the new lefty country, and lefties moving in, it would accomplish some great things politically.

How wonderful!! Over the last 50 years Families squatting in America have sent their unwanted family garbage to California to the tune of 30 million sexual perverts, drug addicts, and generational welfare recepiants.Now you want to treat California like the dump you created. Fuck you!!!!

How wonderful!! Over the last 50 years Families squatting in America have sent their unwanted family garbage to California to the tune of 30 million sexual perverts, drug addicts, and generational welfare recepiants.Now you want to treat California like the dump you created. Fuck you!!!!